2025 (3) TMI 176 - HC - GST

Vires of extension of time limits specified under the CGST Act - Chellenge to N/N. 9/2023-Central Tax dated 31st March 2023 N/N. 56/2023 Central Tax dated 28th December 2023 N/N. 9/2023-State Tax dated 24th May 2023 and N/N. 56/2023 dated 16th January 2024 - HELD THAT - In a similar matter in the case of 2024 (7) TMI 1601 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT the Nagpur Bench of this Court has directed the Respondents in the said matter not to take any coercive action against the Petitioner. Here also since the issue is whether the Notifications are valid and whether the impugned order could have been passed (especially if Notifications dated 28th December 2023 and 16th January 2024 are set aside) a strong prima facie case is made out for granting interim relief to the Petitioner. Liberty granted to the parties to apply in the event the matter before the Hon ble Supreme Court is disposed of one way or the other.

Summary

The Writ Petition challenges the legality of Notifications issued under Section 168A of the Central Goods and Services Tax Act, 2017 (CGST Act) by the Union of India and the State of Maharashtra. The main contention is that while some Notifications were issued based on the recommendation of the GST Council, subsequent Notifications were not, rendering them ultra vires. The Petitioner seeks to quash the impugned Order passed under Section 73(9) of the CGST Act due to the alleged noncompliance with Section 168A.The key issue revolves around the legality of the Notifications extending time limits under the CGST Act and whether they were issued in accordance with the provisions of Section 168A, particularly concerning the recommendation of the GST Council.The Petitioner argues that the subsequent Notifications were not recommended by the GST Council, contrary to the requirement of Section 168A. The Respondent, on the other hand, argues that Section 168A was enacted to address situations like wars and pandemics, including the Covid-19 pandemic, as force majeure events, justifying the issuance of the Notifications.The Court acknowledges that the issues raised in the Writ Petition are arguable and similar matters are pending before the Supreme Court. Consequently, the Court issues Rule and grants interim relief to the Petitioner, restraining the Respondents from taking coercive action until the final disposal of the petition.In summary, the core legal questions involve the validity of the Notifications under Section 168A of the CGST Act, specifically regarding compliance with the recommendation requirement of the GST Council. The Court finds merit in the arguments presented by both parties and grants interim relief to the Petitioner pending further proceedings, considering the prima facie case made out by the Petitioner.